I don't see an intersection here with first amendment issues. To argue that somebody shouldn't say something is a perfectly fine example of free speech.

BTW, one link I provided was about one of the Republicans Mike was probably talking about. I'd actually misread it when I skimmed through, but in the end it is too easy to find this stuff. Google "Bush is stupid". Here's another page of merchandise from the other site. Wonder who buys these?

I see what you mean with the bumber stickers/t-shirts, etc., but in honesty, they both say the same thing. One implies it, and the other says it outright. But I agree that I probably wouldn't put any of the first ones on my car, even if I am thinking it.

You know, it's his own fault, he makes it so easy for people to disparage him..

You know, it's his own fault, he makes it so easy for people to disparage him..

In light of the "crusade", "You're doing a great job, Brownie", and "Mission accomplished" I won't argue. When you analyze the phenomenon, however, I just want you to factor in when this sort of thing started, e.g. consider the Nostradamus hoax email that circulated after his election in 1999. See, for example,

under hoaxes. At that time I could only surmise that it was based on a facile analysis of his poor speaking skills (stilted speech, invented words, the famous mispronunciation of "nuclear"), and possibly on his overt religiousness. In some sense I suppose all of that is his fault as well, although the resulting "folksy" image did play well in certain demographics.

Don't forget the falling off the couch. That was a good one too! The fact that a man with as much education as he, should not be butchering the English language as much as he does. That's why he has professional speech writers and a teleprompter.

BTW, as a school teacher, I don't allow my students to visit Wikipedia; therefore, I don't either, but I'll take your word on what's said there.

John,

As I said before, I think that if Kerry had presidential aspirations in 2008, that dog just up and ran. Just one slip of the toungue is all you get!

BTW, as a school teacher, I don't allow my students to visit Wikipedia; therefore, I don't either, but I'll take your word on what's said there.

In 1973, electrical engineering Professor Foster did not allow his students to use calculators. To do math for 3-phase electricity problems, it's necessary to be in polar coordinates to multiply/divide, and rectangular coordinates to add/subtract. You could look stuff up in trig and log tables, and do the equation conversions with a slide rule. Or... You could plug the numbers into an HP 45, and get the conversion in a few keystrokes. So why did Professor Foster not allow the use of calculators? In his words "I don't trust the things!"

To this day, I remember Dr. Foster with both fondness and bemusement.

Wikipedia is just a secondary source, like any other secondary source. Unlike most sources used here and elsewhere, most every entry has references in the back which bring you directly to primary sources. The articles are replete with hyperlinks to primary source information. It is constantly under peer review, and "challenges" are posted IN THE ARTICLE whenever someone in the community disagrees with content. As such, it is a living, breathing reference capable of adapting to the input of many. No book in any library can claim that. Not even peer-reviewed literature released in print can claim that.

On the one hand... I understand why Professor Attinger asked us not to use computers for data analysis in my physiology laboratory class. In her words,"This may be the last time you ever look at raw data." In this case I agreed, and am thankful for what I learned doing things "the hard way."

On the other hand, productivity and innovation are the two things which differentiate us from others in the marketplace. Professor Francoise Attinger never meant for us not to use computers for data analysis. Quite the contrary, she was on my dissertation committee for my work Analysis of Cardiopulmonary Rhythms. I sampled 8 channels of data with an A/D converter, did digital filtering of the data on the computer in real time, performed Fourier Analysis of the data streams on a computer, did peak detection and quantification on a computer, and did the descriptive and inferential statistics on the computer. But at the end of the day, I made sure I checked the raw data - as Francoise would have wanted.

More specifically on the references front... When I first started doing medical research, a literature search meant a day or several days in the library pouring through volume after volume of Index Medicus. From there you would get your list of peer-reviewed publications on your topic, which then could be found elsewhere in the library - volume by volume.

These days when I want to look something up in the medical literature, I get on Pubmed (online). I'll have a quote from a citation within minutes. It is utterly disgusting how little time it takes. I feel like I'm... cheating!

Nope... It's called productivity gains. It's how we still have a working economy even though there are people halfway around the world who will do a manufacturing job for dollars a day.

No offense here, but not teaching the average high school student and thus correcting various research projects of theirs, you wouldn't know that they do not look that deeply into their sources. Wikipedia allows for people to write in and be part of the information. If there are challenges to the information, the normal high school kid will not look for it, nor acknowledge it.

I would be embarrassed if I used this source, secondary or not, in any historical or otherwise project that I was researching. Without validity, the source is useless.

I'm not taking offense here, Mike. Part of me understands what you are demanding of your students, and I commend you for it. I'm calling statements into question because that's what we do on these forums in order to develop a better understanding of the world around us.

Depending ONLY on Wikipedia would be a bit like allowing students to read a Shaum's outline of a classic ONLY rather than starting with the classic itself.

Mike wrote:

I would be embarrassed if I used this source, secondary or not, in any historical or otherwise project that I was researching.

Why? Did your parents have Encyclopedia Britannica or some equivalent in your home library? A number of different volumes of such were always available in every high school library I ever used. Didn't you ever start a research project with one of these sources?

I took history at Phillips Exeter (near you). We never actually used a history textbook for the class, although one was made available in the library. Instead we read volume after volume of secondary sources which contained detailed analyses on small aspects of human history - complete with primary sources. We were asked to write a term paper for the semester on a subject (mine was on the Dred Scott Decision), and needed at least three primary sources in the references. But I'll have to tell you that I totally lost perspective in class without going to the library and getting "the big picture" in an encyclopedia.

It's just a source.

Mike wrote:

Without validity, the source is useless.

What is a "valid" source? Talk to a Christian, and (s)he may tell you The Bible is the only valid source. As a scientist, I would chuckle at that claim.

"Validity" can be a highly subjective thing, Mike. In academia the closest thing you have to validity is a peer-reviewed journal. And even there we see how paths of thinking can get "stuck" for a generation before a sudden ephiphany takes place. Check out Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolution. There are volumes of citations in peer-reviewed journals that are "wrong turns" in the human experience. And you know where all that is sorted out? In textbooks, encyclopedias, and... Wikipedia. Imagine that!

George Mattson's Uechiryu Karatedo is a great example. It's a classic, and one of the first. It's an oft-quoted source. But - bless George's heart - it's riddled with mistakes. Why? Because it was a first. Will I get rid of my copies? Heeelll no! I have half a box-full (rare these days) that I'm selling only to my own students with the mandate that I'm coming to get them if I find their copy on E-Bay.

Meanwhile, check out the Wikipedia reference on Uechi Ryu. I actually see a half dozen or so errors in it, but then I've been researching Uechi Ryu for 32 years. I frankly am impressed. The mistakes I see in it are the same bloody mistakes that George started because English was his first language. Allan Dollar did a lot better, having the benefit of George's effort behind him. But even his book has mistakes in it. (Took me 2 years to find the first...)

I do wonder what I'd do if I was in your shoes, Mike. Personally I don't think I'd ban the use of Wikipedia. In fact I would encourage it. But I would make my students cite the original sources that the Wikipedia article got its information from. That way I can be sure that they're actually thinking for themselves, learning about and using primary sources, and going a layer or two deeper on every research venture they start. They'd just get there faster though if they started it online. And that's not a bad thing - particularly if it means the new generation finds truth faster than the old.

Why? Did your parents have Encyclopedia Britannica or some equivalent in your home library? A number of different volumes of such were always available in every high school library I ever used. Didn't you ever start a research project with one of these sources?

Yes, I used encylopedias when I was a kid, and allow my students to use them as well to get a starting point on a topic, but there is a difference here. Have you ever opened the front cover of an enclyopedia? There is the name of several estute (presumably) individuals who have supposedly edited the contents so that what you are reading is as close to the right thing as possible. I don't know anyone of these people personally, but maybe you do since you have worked so closely with UVA. Wikipedia, on the other hand, allows for constant input from anyone. REPEAT ANYONE. If given the choice of where I would look on the Internet, I would choose an EDU site before choosing Wikipedia.

BTW, students don't have the kind of time to have them doing research on sites such as Wikipedia (well not at least in a history course).

Quote:

I took history at Phillips Exeter (near you). We never actually used a history textbook for the class, although one was made available in the library. Instead we read volume after volume of secondary sources which contained detailed analyses on small aspects of human history - complete with primary sources. We were asked to write a term paper for the semester on a subject (mine was on the Dred Scott Decision), and needed at least three primary sources in the references. But I'll have to tell you that I totally lost perspective in class without going to the library and getting "the big picture" in an encyclopedia.

Well, I guess the education at Phillips Exeter is not as great as we all thought.

I have text books which I'm forced to assign (Prentiss Hall), but hate them because of the shoddy editing job by these supposed experts. I use them solely as supplement material. But secondary education has been moving toward more primary based sources for the past 5 - 6 years, so I give them more of that whenever possible. It makes for better reading and more indepth discussion.

Quote:

What is a "valid" source? Talk to a Christian, and (s)he may tell you The Bible is the only valid source. As a scientist, I would chuckle at that claim.

I know we can never really get as valid as we would like, but it is all relevent, and yes subjective. But in order to prep these kids for college, you are trying to give them the best choice, not a choice. It's really as simple as that. If you think Wikipedia is a fine choice for you and your kids, then all the power to you, but I would prefer my kids (school or otherwise) to look at the multitude of better choices for information, especially on the Internet.

You are speaking about (I presume of course) people who will make the right decisions regarding what they read. In my 15 years of teaching high school, you can't really do that. You have to take them by the hand and show them. And unfortunately, you don't have the time to take those interesting tangents.

BTW, as a school teacher, I don't allow my students to visit Wikipedia; therefore, I don't either,

Two questions... You do not allow students to visit wikipedia - how can you do that. That is a challenge to the students.

And, why not?

It is a great site.

I am now a Physics teacher for the county and we encourage all students to visit Wiki for a starting point when doing research on a lab or project. Henrico county is way ahead of the rest of the country in using technology in the classroom. All middle schoolers get an IBook and all high schoolers get a Dell PC.

The laptops come preloaded with all manner of software and Internet Explorer has Wiki bookmarked.

The school staff meets monthly to discuss technology and the entire county science team meets to discuss our specific needs. On top of that the Physics teachers meet to further refine what we want the kids to use. Wiki is high on the list.

Last month the county Physics team was searching the web for the best starting point to explain gravity, tidal action etc and Wiki's site was clearly the best.

Yeas, I use Wikipedia as a stareting point sometimes, but I rarely rely on it in toto (no that's not the little Kansas Dog)

I had a pretty good argument with two online freinds, on about the Roman Formation called the "Testudo" (Tortoise) where the shild wall cover all sides and makea a ceiling.

The princinple is simple, but getting Legionaries to march with their sheil over their heads, to the right, to the left and to the rear could only result from and extremely well disciplined unit.

My detractor insisted (he was from Italy and and ER Doc) that the word was 'testula" (?) perhaps it maybe so in a language other than Latin.

He pointed out a web space where the offending word "testula" was given.

I said 'it's flat out, no bs, the end, a mistake".

The Response was: "I'm a doctor and cannot be expected to know everything" ????

Oh, the point is I think reference to the wikipedia, or any other on line source is ok, but do watch for mistakes.

I noted in my readings numerous reference to the lost city "Dura Europos" about which I hope to post something, after I get through a few more sources. Wikipedia site that has much. Perhaps Amazon will have a book on it.

I noted one post, I am not going to say which, that lifted a Wikipedia article pretty well intact.

But as I do not disparage knowledge from any source, I did not even occur to me to 'gig' the poster about it.

Two questions... You do not allow students to visit wikipedia - how can you do that. That is a challenge to the students.

It's easy. I tell them if they use that as a source I will not accept it. I try to push them toward primary resources anyway, but when a secondary source is needed, there are better alternatives. What kind of challenge are you speaking of anyway? The challenge of whether the information is correct or not? If I have 100+ papers to read, I don't have time to check Wikipedia and see if it gave the correct information to my students' papers. Maybe at your school they give the faculty this much needed prep time, but not up here in good ole' Massachusetts.

Quote:

It is a great site.

I suppose if you think that way, then who am I to change your mind. I would be interested in hearing what your media specialist (aka librarian) or history teachers think about it.

Quote:

I am now a Physics teacher for the county and we encourage all students to visit Wiki for a starting point when doing research on a lab or project. Henrico county is way ahead of the rest of the country in using technology in the classroom. All middle schoolers get an IBook and all high schoolers get a Dell PC.

First of all, I must say it must be nice to have a school system with money. That would certainly be a welcome change. Tell me, who pays for the PC when they lose it or break it? Up here, and I would presume most places, you can't even get them to return or pay for lost books sometimes. It's against the law to hold report cards or transcripts. Is it different down there or does the school force the students to purchase them up front? And what happens when they forget to bring them to class? Are there extras laying about?

Not to get into a mine is better than yours argument, but just because you have money for hardware, doesn't mean it's a better argument for advocating Wikipedia. If your people support it, then that's great, but nothing was stopping me from going to your link on tides and making incorrect edits. How is a middle or high schooler going to know? That's what is wrong with it.

Quote:

The laptops come preloaded with all manner of software and Internet Explorer has Wiki bookmarked.

Doesn't your school have a server that they could put something else on that is more reliable?

Quote:

The school staff meets monthly to discuss technology and the entire county science team meets to discuss our specific needs. On top of that the Physics teachers meet to further refine what we want the kids to use. Wiki is high on the list.

Well, I know that if the media specialists finds kids going to Wikipedia in our library, she goes nuts. This isn't even an issue in my school, especially in the Social Studies Dept., we don't use it, don't espouse it, and move kids on to other search engines or reference areas. We have a reference page on the server that is excellent, but I can't remember the name. I'll find it later.

Quote:

Last month the county Physics team was searching the web for the best starting point to explain gravity, tidal action etc and Wiki's site was clearly the best.

This is true for projectile motion, Newton's Laws etc. Granted this is HS level research but it is the place to start. The experts in this field must monitor and upgrade the site regularly.

Barring the use of Wikipedia may not be a good decision.

Well, here is the question. How often is the site monitored for mistakes? Who does the checking? And in the process, are you prepared for students getting wrong information if they access the information before the eiditor does? Why take the chance? It's not worth it for me both in time and energy, and if my job is to show them the best way to access research material, I'm not going to recommend Wikipedia.

Just from a quick (and I mean quick) Google search, these two comments were found....

"An encyclopedia can't just have a small percentage of good entries and be considered a success. I would argue, in fact, that the overall quality of an encyclopedia is best judged by its weakest entries rather than its best. What's the worth of an unreliable reference work?"

Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has admitted that the much loved "free encyclopedia" has at least some quality problems. To some of us, this is nothing new. I've had more than one student rely on Wikipedia for accurate information for a paper, and it always ends up the same way: "well, I got it off of Wikipedia, thinking it was good...".
And therein lies the problem. If you keep in mind that anyone, and I mean anyone, can edit a Wikipedia entry, then you are treading on dangerous ground if you're going to cite it as a source of fact. While it's true that errors often get corrected, they don't always, and what happens in the meantime is that bad info sits there, misinforming people.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum